The first “Black Panther” was a product of its time. King T’Challa ended the film with a speech about the importance of openness and the responsibility that the enlightened and technologically superior Wakanda had to the greater world. It was an obvious rebuke to the present political climate in America, specifically the border wall politics of Donald Trump. The movie was wildly successful and Hollywood patted itself on its back for their political courageousness. Four years have since passed (maybe nine in Marvel time depending on the blip). At this time, I think it would be appropriate to take a step back and assess whether King T’Challa’s promises were kept. From the looks of it, the Wakandas haven’t started.
This movie makes a big deal as to whether or not the Wakandans have shared the secrets of Vibranium, their exclusive and all-purpose natural resource. They haven’t, but I don’t blame them for that. America doesn’t share its nuclear weapons technology and the original Black Panther wasn’t making the argument that it should. No, I’m talking about the immigration policy of Wakanda. King T’Challa, the monarch of a nation with an eternally closed border and a 100% ethnically homogenous population, had made a veiled criticism of the United States of America, the most immigrant friendly and diverse country in the history of the world, for not being open enough. Surely, within four years, Wakanda would have allowed some migrants to enter their lands. How about some refugees from the interminable civil war in neighboring Congo or from the chaotic and famine stricken Horn of Africa? No? Well, then they must at least have let in some Indians with P.H.D’s in software engineering. Nope, not one. The people of Wakanda are as pure of race as they have ever been.
Beneath the comic book facade of Marvel’s Black Panther franchise lies a fascinating philosophical conundrum. Its contradictions are manifestly apparent, but because of the political climate in Hollywood, they go unmentioned. Wakanda is based on an erroneous premise, one that has been taken to such extraordinary lengths and with such artful sincerity in these two films that it goes a full 360 degrees and unwittingly presents its own antithesis.
It is one thing to be appalled by the evils of five hundred years of European hegemony: the Atlantic slave trade, colonialism, environmental degradation, etc.. It is something else to argue that Europeans (read white people) have contributed nothing good to human civilization during the same time period, no advancements in culture, morality, or political science, as well. But this is what the premise of Wakanda must argue. Otherwise, it couldn’t exist.
What is the Wakanda premise? It is succinctly articulated in the first minute of the first film. Five tribes in Africa had access to a special resource: Vibranium. They fought with each other until one man used Vibranium to become stronger than all the rest: the First Black Panther. This Black Panther imposed his power over the rest of the tribes and Wakanda became peaceful. The remainder of the world was without vibranium. Presumably without a material that would make one particular person stronger than the rest, it descended into chaos and war while Wakanda thrived.
According to that, what is the source of political power? It’s technology. The corollary to this argument follows: White people’s position of power in the last several hundred years is due solely to their advanced weapons technology. If the colonized people of the Earth had the same technology as the Wakandans, they would have been able to fight off the Europeans and keep their way of life, which in its natural state was advanced and peaceful. It is not a mistake to note that the Black Panther, although his position is one acquired and maintained by brute strength, is not the oppressor of his people, but it's protector, and that the Wakandans, even with their advanced technology, sought no conquest or colonialism over neighboring peoples. Why does the Wakandan monarchy not descend into bloody successionary wars or attack its neighbors like every other hereditary monarchy in history? Well, because Wakandans are a closed society with a pure race untainted by the outside world. In other words, because the Wakandans (see black people) are inherently good and the outside world (see white people) are inherently bad.
This train of logic goes so far as to argue against democratic principles. You see, if you take the premise that a society untainted by foreign elements will remain in its advanced and peaceful ideal form, then a democracy with its openness to expression and immigration and its wild swings from popular passion to popular passion is an obvious threat to the system staying the same. In other words, if everything is already perfect, a hereditary monarchy with absolute power handed down from superior man to superior man is a much better system for the job: keeping everything perfect. As the Queen points out in this movie, it is not that Wakanda will not share its secrets of Vibranium, it is that a country such as America (represented here by white people) cannot be trusted with it.
Like critical race theory, which appropriates much of its thought from non-racial Marxism, the Wakandan premise overlays a racial element from very ancient non-racial philosophy. (You can’t make any philosophical argument in America nowadays without including race somehow). It really goes back to that age old question: whether change makes things better or worse. A philosopher like Plato would argue the latter. He argued that the world in the past was composed of ideal forms that had since, via intermixing with foreign elements, become decayed and degraded. The idea of a secret utopian society bereft of the outside world’s ills is not new. Voltaire included it as El Dorado in Candide. The Shire in J.R.R. Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings is another good example. Modern fascism and totalitarian regimes embrace the idea and use it as the main reason for rigid censorship and propagranda. What has always struck me as absurd is why open and prosperous societies such as America and Athens of old consistently produce intellectuals that swear by the superiority of such evil states as the USSR and Sparta. Marvel’s continued practice of criticizing its own country and leaving such nations as China off its villain list is yet another iteration in this age-old tradition. But then again, there is something inherently unequal and undemocratic about superheroes in general. They are quite literally superior to the rest of us and according to the Wakandan premise, that superiority in strength entitles them to unquestioned political power. (I disagree of course, which is why I was firmly Team Iron Man for "Captain America: Civil War")
The interesting thing about both Black Panther movies is that this ugly premise is present but not belabored. I believe that the writer/director Ryan Coogler does not have a racist bone in his body nor do I believe he is philosophically pig-headed. He is working for a large corporation that has given him this premise to work with. Mr. Coogler follows it with reason and competence. In doing so, the Black Panther movies are good comic book movies with decent action and great production value, yes, but they are also plausible narratives of power politics. The main characters are Wakandan royalty and they act with a knowledge of their absolute power and a sense of entitlement to it. The main antagonist is royalty himself, King Namor of Talokan, an underwater Mayan secret society (appropriated from the myth of Atlantis).
The interactions between the royal families are done so well that the two nations go to war for reasons so stupid and arrogant that it would fit right into the Hundred Years’ War. Neither King Namor nor Princess Shuri bother to seek counsel or permission from their respective populace’s before sending men to fight and kill each other. They just decide to do it and their subjects just obey orders without any second thoughts. The war is fought to a draw and nothing is gained or lost that couldn’t have been negotiated by diplomats or voted on in referendums. Unless, that is, you count the lost lives of subjects, which the movie barely registers.
You may be wondering why I’m talking at length about political philosophy and not the movie. Good question. These ideas are not new to me. In fact, I could have inserted them into my review of the first Black Panther movie. I didn’t because there was so much that was new and exciting about that movie that I just gave it five stars and talked about the good stuff. This movie, Wakanda Forever, though is actually quite mediocre. The plot is pretty simple and the action sequences, well, you’ve seen them before. Overall, I believe my philosophical digressions are more interesting than an in-depth review of the movie. At least this is what I was thinking while I was watching this movie.
Here is my proffer for the plot of the third Black Panther movie. One or more of the tribes finds out that King T’Challa has a son and recognizes him as the proper heir to the throne as a direct challenge to Princess (now Queen) Shuri. Queen Shuri plots to murder her cousin and all other blood relatives in order to consolidate her power. A bloody and ruthless civil war ensues which depopulates the countryside and expends the wealth of the nation. In order to gain advantage, both sides start trading secrets of Vibranium to the outside world, which brings in other nations into the fight. Ultimately, the USA and UN intervene and insist that Wakanda install a democracy. Falcon represents both the USA and UN in this development and this is accepted by Wakandans as something other than a humiliation because Anthony Mackie is black. Finally, have someone other than Ryan Coogler do it. That man has done his time and should be choosing projects that are more personal in nature.
